· Private foundation
United Activists for Animal Rights
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Critters without Litters | $200,000 |
| Moreno Valley Animal Hospital | $125,000 |
| Animal Friends of the SB Valley | $125,000 |
| Riverside Animal Shelters | $125,000 |
| Kern County Animal Hospital | $100,000 |
| Together Spay it for the Future | $100,000 |
| Kern County Animal Shelters | $100,000 |
| Taking it to the Streets | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100,000 |
| Bear Paw Wildlive Shelter | $75,000 |
| City of Bakersfield Animal Shelters | $50,000 |
| Turpintine Creek Wildlife Shelter | $50,000 |
| Mary Roberts Spay Neuter | $50,000 |
| Humane Society of SBV | $50,000 |
| Ash Humane Society | $20,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 8% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +123% since the first grant, against -15% for those funded once.
4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 1% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.4M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- DDonkeyLand4× · 2018–2023 · $46k · revenue +123%
- IGIndividual grant recipient4× · 2017–2025 · $38k
- ZCZoo Check3× · 2017–2019 · $27k
Funded once
- XSXERCES SOCIETY INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +125%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $25k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $11k
How this is measured
Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
4 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.
How this is measured
Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 4 of the 27 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.
Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding
A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization United Activists for Animal Rights funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Activists for Animal Rights. Bigger dots raise more.
- Xerces Society Inc: 22% of income from government
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to United Activists for Animal Rights?
Find your warmest path to United Activists for Animal Rights through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.
Play a game based on United Activists for Animal Rights’ filings →